Posts [ 1 to 25 of 26 ]

Topic: Using real footage in horror.

Now I know a lot of people here, I can name one certain monkey, don't like Boll or his work. Seed was free on lovefilm and as I've not seen a stitch of Boll I thought meh, might as well. I read a couple of reviews while it buffered and noticed tons of stuff about real animal cruelty. To the point people were ready to firebomb his arse for including the scene. According to some research the footage was donated by PETA to Boll for the movie to make a point. Lots of over over exaggerating reviews later claiming it was between 5 and 15 minutes of footage I pressed play to see 2 minutes of very unsettling footage. It was brutal and I was pretty upset by it but I don't feel angry at Boll for using it or PETA for donating it. Mostly I feel really ready to see some vengeful bloodshed.

Is it right for them to use this real stuff to cause emotion and to make a point for a movie or should everything be prosthetic, puppets and CGI trickery? It's obviously been done before within the video nasty circle but was real footage a step to far? Just after some thoughts.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

For me personally, I think it really varies on the situation. Like more than often you could get the same effect from just using fake stuff, but then again in Apocalypse Now they actually kill an animal and use the scene in the movie (water buffalo scene). And they supposedly killed more animals but never used the footage.

My main point is, most of the time you can create the same affect with fake effects, and not really kill animals, etc. But you can also use real footage, to cause controversy and then that could potentially get your film more known.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Oh I should add. I hated Seed. It was pointless and gratuitous. Had no meaning, story or anything special. Seemed Boll thought throw in some baby deaths, a PETA video and some half arsed story of revenge and it'll send the fans flocking to the dvd shop! Nice try buddy.

I agree with you Scavenger. Actually it's probably the best way to describe my feelings about it too. It does cross a line for me if animals are killed for the sake of the movie but as this was footage that was given to them and they had no involvement at all I don't feel the same way but yes it could have been done with a fake animal and actors and have the same effect.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Good topic with an earnest starter.

The Eyetalian Mondo shockumentaries from the sixties and their cannibal flicks of the eighties were notorious in this aspect, Cannibal Ferox in particular is deeply unpleasant and goes into some reprehensible animal abuse territory for example. Now, there's a school of thought that proffers that this disgusting phenomenon was 'of its time' and that morality varies from culture to culture and one mans Muskrat getting its torso ran through with a knife is no worse than, say, all the eight legged buggers that got squished under the tryes of cars in 'Kingdom of the Spiders'.

The opening segment of Seed is revolting, but , (and, as a dog owner I'm also asking myself this same question here), is it the type of animal cruelty or the type of animal that is suffering said cruelty? I wasn't especially angered by the infamous 'turtle soup' scene from Cannibal Holocaust, nor the mountain of the Cannibal God sequence where a snake is snapped in two. It's clearly because these are fluffy, cuddly dogs, not because of the attrocities themselves.

I must say though I find Boll's dubious disclaimer about his inclusion of the dog beating scene as a plea from P.E.T.A to be about as convincing as Deodato's excuse that all the slain animals in Holocaust were later eaten. They both included them for shock value and grisly entertainment... and... even if PETA did approach Boll with that awful points scoring trick then shame on them because Seed goes on to show Baby's getting clobbered to death on bus posts and starved to death, while getting eaten by maggots. I mean, cumon P.E.T.A, if you're gonna use films to get your message across, don't use a hardcore horror film like Seed, and for fucks sake, don't entrust Uwe Boll to get your point across!!!

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Love that reply Fulcento! I am actually against PETA and their tactics anyway. While I agree with their goal, animal cruelty is sickening no matter what it is (I'm an enthusiastic campaigner against cruelty to bettas and large fish breeds) their methods are at best counter productive terrorism. It's a good point though, I see people who will adopt a fluffy pomeranian way before they adopt a scruffy cross breed because obviously Poms are fluffy and cute.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

I give the older films a pass, due to their age and a different frame of mind back then. I don't think it's appropriate to use animal cruelty footage unless you have a specific point to make. And it better be a really poignant point you're making.

There is no real point in using actual footage anymore outside of a documentary. We've talked about what is too far in horror movies. My line is actually hurting any person or animal. (Except for Raimi beating up The Bruce in his movies, that's just funny, ) Here's an idea- you want to hurt a person, you get to be the one. You want to hurt an animal, it has to be your pet, with your kids watching. And then my monkeys get to beat you.

And PETA is a farce- it has the quickest execution rate of basically every animal shelter; 7 days I think I read. Something like 20,000+ per year in PETA shelters. Their excuse? It's too mean to keep them in captivity. What kind of twisted logic is that?

Re: Using real footage in horror.

i don't think using real footage in horror is good. i enjoy horror because it's not reality. it's fun for me because it's fantasy. i saw an old "avant-guard" movie where they killed a bunch of rabbits for a scene and i thought it was pretty lame. i wouldn't think very highly of someone using real footage in their horror movie.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

If PETA was trying to make a point, they should have given the footage to a filmmaker better than Boll. Which isn't hard to do. Throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit a better filmmaker than Boll.

That said, I don't see a purpose for using real footage. With the advances in modern make-up and prosthetic FX there's nothing that can't be realistically faked. I've never seen the movie in question and have no desire to, but from the sounds of it the footage wasn't made for the movie, it was just some footage PETA happened to have and wanted to share? That's one thing. I don't like it, either, but at least it wasn't something like Men Behind the Sun or Cannibal Holocaust, where animals were gutted and lopped to pieces for the sake of the movie.

Still, no. PETA are assholes. Using Bush-like "shock and awe" tactics to get their points across. You hear all the time about how PETA members will run up and douse a chick in a fur coat with red paint, because they believe a coat is not a good enough reason to kill an animal -- yet the dumb-asses don't seem to realize that by ruining the coat, they just ensured the animal DID die for absolutely nothing.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

To be fair Lon, as much as I despise Boll, 'Seed' is worth a watch mate, it's one of Boll's rare films that doesn't make you want to wrench your eyeballs out with rusty pliers and stuff them in your ears so as not to see or hear any more of his typical fare. 'Seed' is pretty bloody good mate. No joke. Even insufferable hacks have an occasional good day every now and then and... excuse the prescient pun here buuut... every dog has its day... and Seed is Boll's.

It's worth a watch and, as much as it pains me to say, is actually rather decent.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Fair enough! In that case, just watch this scene instead - it pretty much encapsulatess the inept mean spiritness of the entire film rather well. Just look at those amazing CGI blood splatter effects!!!

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Of course. Everyone has a line they won't cross in regards to film content. For instance, after having suffered through House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne and In the Name of the King, I will never expose myself to another Uwe Boll film.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

Hurting animals for the sake of making footage to have in a film is absolutely wrong without exception in my opinion. There have been some great directors responsible for this in some great movies and it still does not make it right.

Now, using existing footage that wasn't made with the intent of being in a film, is more difficult for me to decide. It would still bother me, and I may not want to watch it, but its may not be as wrong.

Think about how many movies show actual real news video of people getting hurt / shot. Its been in many, but one that comes to mind is 28 Days Later where they show all the news footage to emphasize how bad people are to each other. Is this ok? I think so, and I think most people do too.

However, what's to stop someone from using that rationale, and influencing something to be made / taped, to be in a movie, while at the same time holding their hands up and claiming it was unrelated already existing footage? Get what I mean? I know I'm going off point a bit, but I think its valid, and i don't think its that far off from happening.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

This is quite a complex issue for me because I feel VERY passionately that horror is at its most powerful when it does to a degree reflect reality (and have literally written a good part of article on the political and social commentaries of a number of horror titles). Saying this I am vehemently against intentionally hurting animals for exploitative purposes and using it as footage in a film (such as in the Italian cannibal movies, Faces of Death or Mondo Cane ones). In the case of Uwe Boll's Seed I have got the impression that it is a very nasty and worthless 'torture porn' film (one where this label is actually deserved) that tries to appeal to people who get enough on the torture for the sake of it, like say, that in Hostel. So, yes in this case I would be very against real footage of animal cruelty where it is part of its attempted and worthless nasty appeal. (and any other film that attempts a similar thing)

I would however very much like to STRESS that I think showing footage of real animal cruelty (which the filmmakers have not caused themselves) could in some circumstances, within a relevant, complex and critically aware message could therefore be in my opinion acceptable; though from everyones comments it appears PETA themselves use counter productive methods, such supposedly donating footage to Uwe Boll's film to highlight these issues in real life.

Additionally we must also accept that if we don't face the reality of, a in truth very brutal world, however then we risk agreeing with figures like the prominent critic of 'Video Nasties' Mary Whitehouse - who ignorantly objected to showing horrifying footage of Nazi concentration camp's in a 1960's documentary simply because she found it 'offensive'. When we accept reality then can we only learn from it, and in the specific case of the Nazi Concentration camps only then perhaps prevent it in the future.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

...if we don't face the reality of, a in truth very brutal world, however then we risk agreeing with figures like the prominent critic of 'Video Nasties' Mary Whitehouse...

I was in total agreement with you until I hit this speed bump.

I've been to war and seen people go up in a ball of red mist; I've worked in homeless shelters and walked in on a parent attempting to suffocate their infant baby with a pillow; I've worked in rehab clinics and seen people who have literally traded their own prosthetic limb for drugs; I've seen people shot and stabbed; hell, I'VE been stabbed.

I am fully and completely aware of how ugly and violent the world is and can be. I neither want nor need to be reminded of it. I don't think that puts me at risk of becoming like a bureaucratic prig like Whitehouse; it makes me someone who'd rather find something to laugh and smile about instead.

The ugly shit's always going to be out there. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. But that doesn't mean we have to acknowledge it every time it rears its head.

Re: Using real footage in horror.

^^Yep, I've carried more caskets to a grave than I care to count. Watched a few of them die.

I don't need more real-life stuff shoved into my face for no reason. Ask most the members here, and they'll confirm that life can be a wicked bitch. But the thing is- we don't give up. But we don't really want to see sick stuff from the real world for "entertainment."

Re: Using real footage in horror.

I can do without it. Brutal as horror films may sometimes be, and difficult to watch at times. I know it's fake. By no means do I want to see real humans, or animals, being tortured or maimed in any fashion. I still remember the time I shot a bird with my BB gun. I was about 11, and I cried after. Also, I've witnessed way too much violence in the neighborhoods I grew up in. People shot, stabbed, beaten to a bloody pulp, etc... Real life violence sickens me. Not my stomach, my mind.

It's a pretty cruel world we live in and I don't need to be reminded of that for the sole purpose of entertainment. Nor should anyone!

Re: Using real footage in horror.

...if we don't face the reality of, a in truth very brutal world, however then we risk agreeing with figures like the prominent critic of 'Video Nasties' Mary Whitehouse...

I was in total agreement with you until I hit this speed bump.

I've been to war and seen people go up in a ball of red mist; I've worked in homeless shelters and walked in on a parent attempting to suffocate their infant baby with a pillow; I've worked in rehab clinics and seen people who have literally traded their own prosthetic limb for drugs; I've seen people shot and stabbed; hell, I'VE been stabbed.

I am fully and completely aware of how ugly and violent the world is and can be. I neither want nor need to be reminded of it. I don't think that puts me at risk of becoming like a bureaucratic prig like Whitehouse; it makes me someone who'd rather find something to laugh and smile about instead.

The ugly shit's always going to be out there. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. But that doesn't mean we have to acknowledge it every time it rears its head.

I get ur point Lon. In no way was I trying to compare anyone to anyone on here to people like Whitehouse - I know we need a balanced and considered view of the world, and I know there are plenty of positive aspects we should just as focus on a strongly. I am trying to say that we need to be constantly reminded of the ugly stuff in the world, just that we can't, equally stick in our heads in the stand to use a phrase and totally avoid it. Otherwise the same things will repeat and repeat themselves again, whether in the case of animal violence, the Holocaust or any of the issues u mentioned. What these things cannot be used though, and is completely wrong to do so is in a exploitative context. On a side note this is why I hated the recent chilean horror Hidden In The Wood's so much cause it literally spews a vile and gratuitous representation of extreme exploitation topics like rape,cannibalism etc all while it is supposedly based on a true story - and therefore is a insult to the real victims of the particular story, who are perhaps similar to the people and their related horrifying and tragic stories u so passionately describe.